Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Celeb Legal Drama has a fantastic breakdown of the "bakeoff." Before Blake even signed on, this was in the Sony contract: Baldoni only got final cut if he met very specific metrics against Sony's cut. There was always going to be a bakeoff per the contract he agreed to. Sony let Blake and Colleen take the lead on their cut (Colleen was upset Justin had cut her out of the creative process, Blake invited her to join).

Much of the info on this thread is either cherrypicked or just plain wrong. CLD breaks down all the data. Justin's cut did not meet a single metric benchmark stipulated in the contract. Therefore he did not get final cut, period. This happens all the time, which is why we sometimes later see "director's cuts."[/quote]..

Sony’s cut and Blake’s cut are not the same thing, plus Blake’s version scored even lower than  Justin’s.[/quote]

CLD has the actual numbers. Justin's cut did not meet any metric stipulated in the contract. Her version scored lower than his in one screening (only in one age group) but not in another. It didn't matter because the contract said Justin's score had to be 7 points higher, and it wasn't. He lost final cut per the terms of the contract, nothing else.[/quote]

Helpful context, thanks. [/quote]

I’m so confused about this and feel like we’re missing some context. If Blake had in her contract early on that she could have the final cut then she had a ridiculous amount of power on that set from day one. There’s gotta be more context here. they said that Blake could choose the final cut over the director? That’s almost unheard of for someone who’s hired as an actor and only an executive producer, which is essentially a vanity title. I’m going to need some more information here.[/quote]

It wasn't in her contract. Sony had the final verdict over the cut used, and agreed to let her (and Colleen) work on a cut in part because the women felt his cut was too sympathetic to the abusers. They wanted a cut that emphasized survival and empowerment more heavily. Execs viewed and tested Blake's and Justin's cuts and preferred Blake's. The fact that her promotional role was essential and she had contacts to bring in high-level creatives to contribute plus get the rights for TS music in a key scene was surely a factor.

But her cut tested very well. There are e-mails about the first test viewing stating that. It's not true that Justin's tested better across the board. It tested better with one demographic in one test viewing; Blake's performed better in others. His contract stipulated his cut had to perform 7 points better than alternative cuts in tests for him to retain director's cut rights. It did not. Contractually he has no basis to contest the decision regarding final cut and apparently only decided to go after Blake when the SH claims started to get out. That's the retaliation claim on her side. [/quote]

This isn’t factually correct in any respect.  The recent document release showed that Justin scored better across most metrics.

Blake wasn’t hired to be a director nor did Sony want her to be one, she just did it.  Hoover is irrelevant as she had sold her book rights .[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics